What does "Bible literalism" mean? according to this definition.

[YoursTrue]

Biblical literalism is the approach in regarding the Bible as a historical and theological account of true events that actually took place in history, with the over-arching theme of declaring God's will. It is meant to be read as one would any non-fictional literature, literally, with the allowance of literary conventions or colloquial expression, just as every-day speech permits.
Hyperbole, metaphors, symbolism, allegories, parables, anthropomorphisms, figures of speech, idioms, etc... are all allowable interpretive approaches with the same measure as any historical or factual work would include i.e. a small minority of usage 10%+-. In other words, hyper-literalism is to be avoided in a text that is considered literal, especially where common sense dictates (eat my flesh, drink my blood - if your eye offends you, cut it out).

Some have interpreted the Bible in an entirely metaphorical or symbolic manner, or have allowed the majority of their exegesis to be based on these approaches. Biblical literalism attempts to avoid such subjective and unrestrained methodologies, while still allowing common literary devices to be accepted as part of the authorial intent, but strictly in its proper and limited measure.

OK, good points. So when someone uses the expression literalist, or creationist, these terms need to be explored.

 

[rational experiences]

Fact. Human claiming by human presence life and body thinking the book is fact. Book not fact. Natural fact is first. Position one whole real.

Book a humans theisms. Theism literal the subject and topic I chose.

Humans says to human egotists shut your coercive mouth. Tell the truth.

Shut the book. Witnessed testimony legal about natural human versus science human as liar coercers.

Fact all humans natural first is life owner on God earth equal.

Theist word user a lying destroyer. Proven by book of facts. Facts maths claim a problem human versus machine.

All human's as a human is the human should be equal healthy and a sane lived life span. Knowledge of self fact conscious human aware human. Is first always. All human's first own this position without words.

No theories by a human that allowed the meaning a book. As no machine was allowed either fact.

Book a fact of human thoughts theisms literal. No life is a book.

The bible written about God earth gas heavens theisms reactive sciences and how why human life was harmed. By human choice.... human inventors... human liars.... human destroyers the human science community.

Became a used legal document to assess world's community human law as a human review for life continuance on earth. Laws of God broken by human machine technology.

 

[stvdv]

Nope. Ifn it says someone is a door, then he has hinges.

I know,
You are a "no" sayer
I am a "yes" sayer

 

[stvdv]

but, sexual desire on its own isn't deemed to be evil in Judaism

Thank you,

I would've been surprised if Judaism would

I did not think or imply it was evil either
Just "selfish desires", no more, no less

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

This is why the definition linked to in OP doesn’t work:

…”language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking

The “everyday use” of words and language changes over time. A living (used) language is forever changing.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some expressions would have to be taken with a "grain of salt," right? Such as how Jesus described his disciples at Matthew 5:13 when he called them the salt of the earth.

I would have thought the literalist position would have been that Jesus literally said those exact words, not that Jesus never, ever used metaphor or symbolism.

 

[Colt]

According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki

Literal would mean how its understood to a common reading. But some stories that were written as being literal can be dismissed by claiming they must be allegory because the story is so absurd like Noah's flood.

 

[Audie]

I know,
You are a "no" sayer
I am a "yes" sayer

So you say he really does have hinges.
That is something, for sure.
" Yes- sayer" though, not to be negative
here, but "yes- sayer" aint it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Literal would mean how its understood to a common reading. But some stories that were written as being literal can be dismissed by claiming they must be allegory because the story is so absurd like Noah's flood.

What would have been obviously absurd about Noah's Flood at the time it was written?

Yes, it seems absurd to us today, but what sign is there that a scribe writing thousands of years ago understood that the story was allegory and expected his audience to interpret it as allegory?

 

[wellwisher]

According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki

Bible literalism means that the Bible is not altered, in any way, based on any new and clever subjective interpretation and/or temporal fads being used for its interpretation. Rather, the Bible is taken only as was originally written, without any alterations, so the words remain truer to the original for each generation.

For example, if I said that Joe hit the baseball a mile, the literalist would keep the word "mile", even though that is way too far for a baseball to be hit. It will create some confusion. Someone who is not being literal, may try to interpret what a mile means, to settle the confusion, and based on the wisdom of their own day; major league ball parks, they may decide it means 400 ft.

The literalist keeps the Bible the same; mile, while the temporal subjectivists has altered the Bible to 400 ft. The next generation of subjectivists, may decide to alter it even further from 400ft to 360 ft.

The literalist play the roles of gatekeepers and checks and balances so the stories stay closest to the originals. This way each generation starts with an original copy, for their temporal objective and subjective interpretations, instead of having to start from a bootleg copy. This has preserved the Bible.

There have been many people, over the centuries, who have used the Bible for self enrichment in the secular world. Many do this via their own unique interpretations; fads. The literalist help to make sure this does not last more than one self serving generation, at a time.

This topic reminds me of an Indian Jones movie rerun that I watched the other day; The Last Crusade, where Indiana and the Nazi's were both looking for the Holy Grail. as the story went, if one drank from the Grail, it would give that person eternal life. In the plot Hitler wants the grail.

The ambitious Nazi tomb raider interprets the Grail to be fancy and bejeweled chalice, fit for a king to please the Fuehrer. He choses poorly among all the fakes and the one original chalice and ages quickly and dies. Indiana went back to the roots of the original bible story and chose a simple copper mug, that befitted a carpenter. He chose wisely. The literalist preserved the original, so history does not go down the wrong path more than one generation at a time, before ti comes back to its roots.

 

[Colt]

What would have been obviously absurd about Noah's Flood at the time it was written?

Yes, it seems absurd to us today, but what sign is there that a scribe writing thousands of years ago understood that the story was allegory and expected his audience to interpret it as allegory?

The authors of Noah's flood were lying. Today people with just a little common sense who believe the Bible have to write it off as having some allegorical meaning.

The flood story served a purpose as the Israelites sought to connect their blood lines all the way back to the Adam of Mesopotamian lore. It fills a gap.

 

[pearl]

I think there is a difference between the 'literal truth' and the way it is presented, and a literalist reading or interpretation. Both begin, as they must, with the literal. As a rabbi acquaintance once stated concerning the Torah, a literalist interpretation allows one to 'see only her outer garment.'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure, if a theory of science also predicts, then according to the study of humans according to evolution, how man will be 5,000 years from now?

Thanks - that's an easy one: if the noxious ignorance and denial of science prevails, it, along with the xenophobia and misogyny that so often coexists with such ignorance, will likely conspire to ensure humanity's extinction.

 

[Audie]

What would have been obviously absurd about Noah's Flood at the time it was written?

Yes, it seems absurd to us today, but what sign is there that a scribe writing thousands of years ago understood that the story was allegory and expected his audience to interpret it as allegory?

Considering how many today believe it
really happened!

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is.
Evolution isnt hard to understand either.
Makes you wonder about people who blame
others for their own failings.

Why in the world are you bringing up evolution on this thread?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Well, first you have to discount the second sentence -- the Biblical language that you have access to has many variations, because you don't read it in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

This was my first thought as well. You can't "[interpret the language] as used in everyday writing and speaking" if it isn't your language in the first place, and was most definitely imperfectly translated within whatever you're reading. Certain idioms or turns of phrase used in the original language aren't going to match in a 1-to-1 correlation to phrases used "everyday" in writing and speaking in your native tongue - which is especially a problem if you are trying to read things with a literal tilt. Not only this, but this all falls apart immediately since language is known to be an ongoing evolution of meaning and usage. It hasn't stayed "the same" since any part of The Bible was written, translated, or edited and it won't be "the same" in the future.

 

[Audie]

Why in the world are you bringing up evolution on this thread?

Simple. Both literalism and ToE are simple concepts, both seem a struggle.

Maybe theres a common, ah, ancestor
for this difficulty.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Simple. Both literalism and ToE are simple concepts, both seem a struggle.

Maybe theres a common, ah, ancestor
for this difficulty.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Ifva person cant figure out the obvious
its their issue, not a problem with the subject matter.

 

[firedragon]

According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki

Some interpret it as taking the Bible as history and science. And looking at the YEC movement of the 20th century this seems to be justified. But I understand why all of this is so confusing. A lot of people refer to "hard core believers of the Bible" as literalists. I doubt the educated proponent of anti biblical or anti christian polemics would say this, but others do sometimes. Thats probably why this question arose.

Nevertheless, someone like Rashi from the earliest 2nd millennium would say that it's important to understand what the text "illustrates" rather than what history it speaks of or reproduces. "He really did not need to do this (because He is omniscient), but Scripture intends to teach the judges that they should not proclaim a defendant guilty before they have seen the case and thoroughly understood the matter in question." says Rashi. And in saying that he was apparent citing an earlier midrash. That is according to some scholars who also say this kind of tradition is the reason why the Jews did not react to the emergence of evolution as an opposing view to religion or a danger to the Bible like the Christians did who had a more literalist belief or thought process.

Bible literalism could also be a contentious matter when it comes to translation. If you are to translate the Bible into English literally, it might have some problems. That is why they call it interpretation, not translation, though they name it translation. So if you transfer it literrally, that is also called "literalism", which has nothing to do with science, history or anything of the sort.

Some like Robert Shinn said bible literalism is "treating symbols as though they were identical with the realities they represent". There are others who call, being uncritical of the Bible is Bible literalism.

Goes a long way doesnt it?